|
|
Posted for "Bryan J. Burr" <bjburr@mwheli.com>:
Well, I will add my thoughts on this subject. Having dealt with the FAA
over the past 30+ years I believe that the FAA is not to be pursuaded to
change their position regarding the certification of the EPIT LT in
question. If this whole issue has been brought to the spotlight because
of the EPIC/Caldwell certification request then the difficulty in
getting this airplane approved on the "FAA Approved Kit" list is a
monumental task at best. The FAA budget has been severely cut in the
past 2 years. Their main focus is on the air-carriers (FAR121).
General aviation, although important, is simmering on the back burners.
If there is a priority to the General Aviation I would have to say it
would be the FAR135 operators, and certified manufacturers. Part 91
operators including amature built, experimental home builders really sit
quite low on the FAA priority list other than from an enforcement and
accident investigation requirement.
The fact that the first builder EPIC has been denied will certainly
require that it be taken under review by the highest ranks of the FAA
certification office. Something that will take a lot of time. Minds
will not be changed on this issue as any involved govermnment
representatives are not going to make it look like their first decison
was incorrect. Their management positions will be respected by their
superiors and getting to the top for a more thourough review of the
matter will take years. (In my opinion).
The EPIC aircraft is a thing of beauty. It is technically advanced,
capable of unseen performance, extremely desireable, and deserves the
utmost praise for what it is. But what it is has brought the FAA to
bring out the magnifying glass for certification. Any time you want to
be turbine powered, pressurized, operate in the flight levels, and carry
6 or more passengers you are going to bring attention to the product.
There is no way this airplane is going to be allowed to operate in this
environment without rigourous review. This is just "plane" common
sense.
Unfortunately the FAA can't just single out the aircraft by make or by
the designer, or the investor. They can't be that specific. I am
afraid there will be a review of all aircraft that are being built under
the 51% rule and that are and are not on their approved kit list. They
could get very nit picky and tough from here on out. Builder's beware,
you should be as involved in the building process as is necessary to
finish your airplanes with margin to spare. I don't care if you measure
it by hours spent or processes completed, you better be safe in both
areas. And be well documented.
The FAR governing the amature built aircraft won't change overnight but
the way it is intrepreted and applied may. DAR's will become quite
specific, more expensive, and more involved from here on out.
I was jealous while I was attending my two week builder's workshop at
Lancair. I was introduced to extremely fine professional craftsman that
are in the business of taking the kit from Lancair and the money from
the Builder to produce the finest flying machines ever produced. I
really wanted to be one of these proud owners. When asking the question
as to how the 51% rule was handled in this situation I was told it was a
matter of paperwork and contracts. Certainly getting around the intent
of the rule that provided for the builder to finish the aircraft after
gaining help in critical building processes. It certainly was only a
matter of time before the FAA stopped this as it did not provide for the
experience that Amature Built aircraft provide.
I truly relished my building experience and feel I personally met the
intent of the law. It was a great opportunity and a satisfying
experience. I am sure others feel the same.
Bryan J. Burr
N132BB
|
|